Sunday, May 6, 2007
Bad play or a good one?
I had just sat down at a 1/2 table on Bodog late at night. The stacks were all at about $200 which is a perfect table to sit down at, establish a chip lead and then crush it. Anyway my second hand I was dealt K 9 of spaids on the button. A guy in first position raised to $10 dollars and it folded around to me. Having played with him before I knew he had a big hand like JJ-KK. I felt like if any ace hit or a scary board I could take down the pot as well as catching a piece of it and outplaying him by making him commit his chips. I of course called and we went to the flop heads up. The flop came down 6 3 2 with two spaids making it a beautiful flop for me. I could now represent a wide range of hands and have the buffer of a flush draw incase I made a play that didn't work I could still win the hand (I was 100% sure my flush would be the nuts). Villian checked to me and I needed to decide what to bet. With the pot at $23 I bet the pot. I did this for a few reasons. 1) This guy wouldn't fold his kings on the flop unless facing the maximum amount of pressure so in my head I had planned on moving in on him if he check rasied me. He thought a second then doubled my bet making it $20 more. I had to move here to win the pot. There was no way he was going to let me chase a flush down after the turn and I couldn't bluff him off of his hand on the turn if a blank hit because so much was invested in the pot. Moving in on him ensured I would see both the turn and river, and he might wise up and fold here because of such a draw heavy and scary board. I moved all in for my full $200. He thought about it before ultimately calling. I got "lucky" on the turn and hit my flush with him drawing dead. He bitched about losing before leaving (which happens all the time) but what caught me off guard was that other people were sarcastically joking about how it was such a bad play and that I was going to lose all my money. I don't know why I'm even posting about it because I went on a card rush getting aces and kings the next round and cleaned out the table by acting like a donkey and getting paid off. My only question would be about the play. I know there are two ways to look at playing the game and that is through long run expected value of hands (if you play the hand the same way in the same situation and put your money in when you are getting the right value then over time you will win money) but there is also that personal aspect where each hand is an individual and unique hand which can be played many different ways and based on the situation, read on people, etc you can maniuplate the rules and sometimes you get lucky. Basically I went all in on a flush draw vs kings and got called, then hit it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
first off, sorry for not keeping too up to date with the blog...finals have been occupying my time recently and I haven't had much time to play/post minus the $400 losing session which took about an hour the other day...I'll be done Wednesday night though (and I'll probably go straight to the casino again...degenerate)...anyways, I disagree with a lot that has been said about this hand. To begin with, if you know he has a big pocket pair, why bet on the flop when he checks to you, especially when you are sure that he is going to check raise? Are you hoping to be able to blow him off his hand by reraising his check-raise? Once he check-raises, he is committed becuase that board is so draw heavy and most players at $1/$2 dont have the dicipline to fold KK in that spot. In my view, it seems like your bet on the flop is one where you are hoping he has AK and missed and will lay down to your aggressive pot bet. But seeing as how you have put him on JJ-KK (which IMO, he could just as easily have AA, if you're giving him that range, so if thats the case, then your K isn't good any more), you know that once he check raises, the money is going in. Why not just take a free card? You have position, and if the flush hits on the turn, you are still going to make money, since he will bet big to try to protect his hand. If you raise him on the turn, he might assume you are drawing and proceed to push you in to make you pay for your "draw". The correct play here, IMO, is to check the flop and play it from there.
I'm glad we have some disagreement about how to play the hand. I agree with you that on a one hand basis this looks like a maniac play or just a pure gamble. It was. I squeezed a marginal situation in which I might make someone lay down a big hand by pushing against them and used the flush draw as justification. One of the factors that played a part in that decision was the way the game is played online now. It has gotten a lot tighter and the players have gotten a lot better. Most players don't committ their chips when theres a chance their hand is beat. Most players just assume that if a 3rd flush card comes then other people in the hand have it. They don't always fold but they slow down and are more cautious. Because of this you must maximize your winnings on your big hands because the amount of money being won on medium to small hands is decreasing. Another thing I take into account when playing a hand is that I always gun for someone when I know they have a big hand (big pairs mostly) because people have the hardest time folding them and if you're always in there applying pressure to their big hands you're going to get paid off if you crack it. That is, if someone has given away the information that they have a big hand and I have position on them I will always just play the man and hope to get lucky on the flop. You can represent a wide variety of hands with your position and the fact that players are very cautious on scary boards because they don't want to pay off a flopped monster. One of the biggest factors of how I played this hand was the fact that I had just sat down at the table. The table was perfect for online, everyone had about one buy-in in front of them and nobody had taken control of the table. My play gave me a very loose agressive image and after the hand I hit a small card rush and took down a few monster all-ins that I feel like I got looser action because of how they saw me play the first hand. I made a very agressive play in which I took a gamble not only to hit the flush but to loosen up my image and eventually got paid off because of how the cards fell.
In other words, I wouldn't play this hand the same way again. I took a chance because I saw an opening and it paid off. It paid off that hand and the hands to follow because of the action I got. When the tables tighten up you have to start gunning for people (or make them believe you are). I know it is also a profitable and correct way to just play solid tight poker here as well, but if I do that I will lose focus and end up not making correct laydowns because of not seeing enough hands. This hand got me action on future hands. I do believe even if I lost I would have made the money back by reloading and getting action on the hands I hit during my rush (I got loose calls at showdown which is why I say this. People calling with middle pairs to my overpairs which usually you don't get all-ins called with). I guess the best way to put this is to say that it wasn't the best poker play but it ended up being the best decision.
Sounds like we’ve got a bunch of pussies online these days. If a third flush card comes and they always assume you have it, then I’d be playing like I had a flush draw nearly every hand. I think whenever the third flush card hits, MOST people take it into consideration that their opponent may have a flush, but they just don’t assume that you have it. My thought process is this: when someone check-calls on the flop, then the flush card hits the turn, the probability of them having a flush is much more likely as opposed to someone who checked behind me on the flop, and the flush card hits on the turn. In the latter instance, I don’t put my opponent on a flush as often. You say that people have the hardest time folding big pairs online. Knowing this, why would you gamble in a situation, where you have the option of taking a free card, when you are only going to win 1/3 of the time? There are much better, less risky ways of establishing a loose-aggressive image at a table than putting your entire stack at risk on a flush draw. You also said that you got a rush of cards shortly after the hand, and proceeded to get paid off on most of them. What would have happened if you were card dead for the next few hours? You would have been getting action all over the place when you didn’t want it…
This situation brings up an aspect of the game that interests me concerning when you first sit down at a table. Whenever you first sit, people start to make judgments and categorize your play. You can either sit tight and establish a yourself as a nit or you can raise every hand and make everyone think you are there to gamble. I like to do the former and take time out to understand the players around me, then about an hour into the game, I usually change gears and start playing position and raising a bit more. The antithesis of this would be to gamble early, then lock it down later on. Either one is advantageous and it really depends on your personality and style of play. It sounds like you are the one to gamble early, then lock it down to get action on your good hands, but seeing as how you got hit with the deck, it worked to your advantage twice. I think it would be a good “drill” to try both styles and see what works best for you. But just remember that at some point throughout the session, you WILL need to show down a hand, regardless of which route you take. I gotta go right now, but I’d like to talk about this topic more….
I figured i must re-comment on this post because it is getting alot of attention. The initial post referred to whether or not joe's play was a good play or a bad play and in my opinion it was a bad play. I don't see any reason to not just check behind him when you have that flush draw. When someone leads out first position like that and checks on the flop i would say most of the time they are setting up a check raise..and you said you knew he had a big pocket pair so you had to know this was coming...So essentially by his check raise he is committing his stack to this hand...I highly doubt he would fold if you reraise his check raise...its just not likely to happen...
So basically your building up a big pot in which the villian is going to win the majority of the time.
As far as table image is concerned...if your playing against decent players they will not catergorize your playing style after one hand...and if they did then they are dumb enough to lose all there money anyway...
Well guys, since most everything has been touched on this topic there isn't much I can say. You two seem to have a different opinion here than I do. I don't always play fast and reckless trying to set my loose image when I sit down, sometimes I do play tight and wait for my spots so I can open up later. Both styles have their advantages and to tell you the truth it really depends on the table and the events that come in the future. Unfortunately, you don't know how your session is going to go and what kind of cards you are going to get. That part is a gamble. Like in all gambles there are less risky-lower paying gambles and there are risky-highly rewarding ones as well. I took a risk because I felt like gambling that night and it paid off. I was willing to accept the consequences (which are not limited to: missing the flush, losing my stack, getting cold cards afterwards, etc). I justified my play because it is not a decision I always make. I strayed from the path because I saw a small opening in which I gambled for. It paid off and I was lucky that it did, but had I not risked it I have no idea how the night would have gone. I know we've all had these nights where you make all the right decisions and you run over a table. If you look back an analzye every hand you can pinpoint some key decisions (or gambles) you made which guaranteed your success for the night. I guess what I have realized through this post is that sometimes you can't just analyze just one hand. Poker is about millions of hands strung together and how you played them collectively as a whole. Sometimes when a hand arises you must ask yourself what has happened before and what will happen after based on the play of the hand. Will you give someone confidence to bluff into you again if you make the lay down? Will you be able to trap your opponent if you wait until a better situation next time? I understand what both of you are saying here and I guess when I play in hands like these I am setting myself up for either a big night or a quick loss. High-risk high-reward.
Post a Comment